Sergey Lavrov: “The decisions that we take, given the influence of the G20 participants on the world economy and the aggregate weight of the G20 in the global economy – these decisions will affect practically all countries”

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following the G20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.

Atlanta, October 30, 2026

Good afternoon.

To put it briefly, we support the principled focus of the American presidency on depoliticising discussions and concentrating on the topics initially agreed for the G20 agenda. This year, this constitutes, of course, the preparatory stage for the summit in Miami, which will take place in December.

The main topics, however, were geopolitical influence on economic processes (which is an important issue), energy, food and supply chains – that is, everything that suffers from illegal sanctions and the policies of the West. To the credit of our American hosts, they are not shy about discussing these matters, and they listen attentively. I do not know to what extent this will translate into finally approved documents, but the approach is correct – to depoliticise and focus on real problems.

Another point that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio particularly emphasised when speaking about preparations for the summit in Miami is that the G20 comprises twenty countries, the European Union and the African Union. Yet the decisions that we take, given the influence of the G20 participants on the world economy and the aggregate weight of the G20 in the global economy – these decisions will affect practically all countries, and so this must always be borne in mind.

Let me reiterate that we welcome this principled commitment to dialogue. Indeed, the groundwork on the definitive documents for the Miami summit is, in fact, already under way. There will be no shortage of friction there, since interests are tied up in all these areas – both energy and food security. How broader geopolitical conflicts influence this, including the proxy conflict waged by the West against us via the Ukrainian regime – all this remains to be discussed. But the crucial thing is not to approach it from the standpoint of “we are right and you are wrong,” but from the standpoint of understanding and studying the essence of the problem and then seeking agreements that will rest on a balance of interests. We will support such approaches in every possible way.

Question: In previous years, the G20 presidencies were held by BRICS countries; now it is the turn of the United States. How has this transition altered the dynamics and reshaped the thematic focus of the discussion?

Sergey Lavrov: A presidency always dictates the character of the discussion and the prioritisation of key topics. Of course, achieving a final consensus on the agenda remains a collective requirement, but the chair retains the diplomatic initiative.

I have already outlined them: energy, food security, innovation, and supply chains. These, in my view, are the areas that would unquestionably have been identified at events of this kind under a BRICS presidency as well.

Crucially, however, the essence of the disagreements does not simply disappear. Compromises will need to be sought, including on freeing the energy and food markets from the influence of such factors as protectionism and unlawful sanctions, which tear apart those very supply chains and undermine the commercial viability of delivering energy resources to consumers.

Another factor with a bearing, incidentally, is one where the Americans also take a position we understand: investment in the energy sector began to shrink after the concept of the green economy was imposed upon us at the time—a concept which, as we now realise, was in many respects reckless.

All in all, there are many factors. I believe that the pragmatism characteristic of the Americans may help. Nonetheless, I must emphasise once again that reaching an agreement on the final documents for the summit will not be easy.

Question: The G20 faces an increasing number of challenges with each passing year, and divisions on many issues are becoming more pronounced. Are there prospects for rebooting the G20, or does the world nonetheless need a new format, in your view?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not think that creating new formats will bring us closer to solving these problems. The point is not the formats themselves, but the positions of the parties involved. The G20 is a highly representative group. As I have already stated, it accounts for the lion’s share of the global economy and global industrial output, including food production. Just now, when answering the previous question, I quoted US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who noted that the G20 is responsible not only for the well-being of the citizens of its member nations, but also for those in countries outside the bloc. It is by the decisions of this forum that all countries of the world will, one way or another, either benefit or suffer loss and damage.

It seems to me that this format is fully capable and viable; under the presidency of three BRICS members, it produced sound decisions which were then implemented. Under the pragmatic American presidency – and I emphasise this once again – it seems to us there are good chances of reaching agreements that will be carried out.

Question: Did you encounter pressure from Washington regarding its intention to include Poland among the permanent members of this association? What is Moscow’s position on this matter?

Sergey Lavrov: There was no pressure on anyone. The Americans simply invited the Polish minister. He came and sat in the chair they had provided for him. Of course, this violates the principles of diplomacy, especially in a multilateral framework, where the participants in associations such as the G20 work on the basis of consensus – both with regard to the agenda and the invitation of new members, as well as, naturally, the exclusion of original parties to this format, such as the Republic of South Africa. Many today spoke of the need to return to the principle of consensus, including the regular, equal participation of the Republic of South Africa.

As for Poland, it adds nothing. Firstly, in terms of the size of its economy, it does not fall into the required category of nations. Secondly, as they claim, it represents Eastern Europe. There is no such concept as Eastern Europe; there is only the concept of the European Union and NATO. The policies of these two associations are quite adequately represented by those who have been members of the G20 from the very beginning: the French, the Germans, the British and the EU “High Representative,” Kaja Kallas. Therefore, we see no particular need to add another European voice, especially one that is far from constructive. You know precisely what position Poland takes and regularly expresses at international events. The G20 should reflect more accurately and faithfully the trends in the real global economy.

In the real global economy, the countries of the Global South and East are rising. Their real weight in global finance, trade, production and energy is far greater than the weight that was taken into account when the International Monetary Fund was established, or indeed in its subsequent reforms. That is why, regarding Poland, many colleagues in the corridors said that this was a distinctly misguided decision by the American hosts. We will see. We will try to rectify this situation and return the G20 to a consensus basis.

Question: Have your contacts with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio taken place, or are they planned? Since we are in the United States, does the resumption of direct air links with the country remain on the agenda? Are there prospects for resolving the issue regarding our diplomatic property?

Sergey Lavrov: We had a productive conversation, albeit a short one – for understandable reasons – because, as our host, he has many duties that do not allow him to spend much time on contacts outside the G20 framework. Nevertheless, the engagement did take place. We discussed both certain aspects of our bilateral relations and interaction at multilateral venues, including the UN, the G20 and APEC, whose summit will be held very soon, in November, in the Chinese city of Shenzhen.

I have said on numerous occasions that the Americans observe the rules of classical diplomacy, regardless of the tensions in our relations. There have always been – and there always will be – problems between Russia and the United States. Moreover, as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself acknowledged at our first meeting in February 2025 in Riyadh, in the overwhelming majority of cases our national interests – America’s and Russia’s – will not coincide. However, when those interests do align, it would be foolish and wrong not to translate that alignment into the execution of joint, mutually beneficial projects. Conversely, when the interests of Russia and the United States do not coincide, it would be a crime to allow that divergence to escalate into an open clash, or indeed into any confrontation at all. Therefore – despite all our differences – the readiness and interest of the Americans in dialogue at the most varied levels, including between the presidents, the foreign ministers and a whole host of other channels, can, of course, only be welcomed.

This serves as a good lesson for our European colleagues, who continue to adopt a position of what one might call an arrogant boycott. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, who asked for a meeting with me in New York a month ago, issued a statement yesterday or this morning to the effect that he would tell Sergey Lavrov everything about the “aggressive war” and would never be photographed with him. I call this “family photo diplomacy.” If the main concern for them is how they look in the group portrait and who is standing next to them, then that says it all.

Question: US Senator Richard Blumenthal has stated that supplies of Russian fuel are prohibited under American law and that a licence from the US Treasury cannot legitimise them. He even resorted to issuing personal threats to shipping companies, warning: “Turn around before it is too late.” Tell us, are there any genuine risks to the diesel deal, or is this entirely an emotional backdrop?

Sergey Lavrov: Such a law does indeed exist, which prohibits the supply of our fuel to the United States. However, there is a whole series of examples of the incumbent US President Donald Trump’s administration of organising such deals in some way without violating (as they assure us) their own legislation. In general, we have no prohibition whatsoever on selling our energy resources to anyone. Therefore, we are not violating anything on our part. How the American side chooses to deal with our fuel is entirely their task and their problem.

That this deal causes irritation, including in the Senate and the House of Representatives, is well known. This is hardly surprising, because a very large group of current politicians on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch dislike what is happening between Russia and the United States at the presidential level.

As I have already stated, the substantive issues are not being resolved. The sanctions continue. All the measures enacted under former US President Joe Biden are being maintained by the current administration, which is introducing its own additional sanctions against Lukoil and Rosneft. Incidentally, these particular restrictions were imposed a month after the meeting in Alaska.

They continue to supply weapons through Europe, with the Europeans purchasing and transferring them to the Kiev regime. Nevertheless, it was reported today that the US State Department has given preliminary approval for the supply of 500 missiles for Patriot systems, presumably once again at European expense. Furthermore, a major article appeared in The Atlantic stating that the transfer of critical intelligence data to the Ukrainians for strikes deep within Russian territory – under the current administration and the CIA leadership – has not merely been maintained but has actually increased. Cooperation in this sphere has become far more intensive.

One could go on listing these issues at length. Diplomatic property was also mentioned; there is no progress on this front, and although contacts between experts continue, it is a case of running on the spot. Therefore, we see no real shifts in practice.

We have never politicised the economic sphere. Therefore, if a project is mutually beneficial, as in the case of the diesel deal, we will always support such proposals. But regarding the euphoric claims of some of our political scientists and experts that this agreement has “broken the blockade” – we really must come down to earth and not harbour illusions. Incidentally, a few days after this had been discussed by the presidents over the telephone and the deal was already at the implementation stage, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, answering a question as to whether this was a breakthrough or not, remarked that there was no breakthrough, merely an exception. All the sanctions remain.

Therefore, we must be pragmatists, focus on our interests and ensure they are secured in any situation. Our Western colleagues have let us down more than once. There have been many jokes lately that Russia keeps moving its “red lines.” Ultimately, we must rely on our own strength in all spheres on which our sovereignty depends – most notably, our economic sovereignty.

Question: How are preparations for the talks in Abu Dhabi proceeding? Did you manage to speak with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on this subject today? Are the Americans demonstrating a constructive approach, and are the Ukrainians demonstrating the same?

Sergey Lavrov: You know, Marco Rubio and I are not directly involved in the preparation of these talks. By decision of President Vladimir Putin, a delegation has been formed, which is well known to all. They are finalising details with their partners and coordinating venues. This is proceeding through the Presidential Executive Office. Presidential Aide Yuri Ushakov and Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov mentioned roughly mid-November, but the specific dates will, of course, be announced as soon as they are finally confirmed.

Question: Has the American side confirmed its readiness to take part in a trilateral meeting of the leaders of Russia, China and the United States at the forthcoming APEC summit in Shenzhen? Is there already a joint agreement on holding this meeting?

Sergey Lavrov: There have already been many comments in this regard. In all the three capitals, the idea has been received positively. As for the specific organisational aspects, these are being handled by the Chinese side as the host country of the APEC summit. But, of course, in the present situation such a meeting is in high demand.

Question: The telephone call from Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre to President Vladimir Putin caused a major furore in Europe and even provoked a scandal within European ranks. Does Moscow see a desire on the part of certain groups of European leaders to reach an agreement, or is it all for show?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not know. Over there, within that European “noble family,” a scandal is unfolding simply because Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre telephoned President Vladimir Putin. They claim that they warned everyone before the conversation and told everyone afterwards what had been discussed. The point is not what is said. It is evident to all that the Europeans want to force their way into the negotiating process. It is clear that they are determined at all costs not to leave these negotiations as the exclusive preserve of Russia and the United States, which plan to hold a trilateral meeting in Abu Dhabi with the participation of Ukrainian experts. The main issue is not what the Europeans want, but what they can actually contribute by way of added value.

I noted earlier today that the Europeans have taken to accusing us of every mortal sin and insisting that we are obliged to stop the aggression. They have put forward groundless accusations. In connection with their desire to join the negotiations, I reminded them of the facts. What are these facts?

In February 2014, the agreement between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition was guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland. The next morning, the opposition trampled that agreement underfoot. France, Germany and Poland kept quiet and, a day later, even began to praise the process as a “triumph of democracy.”

In February 2015 – the Minsk agreements. Germany and France declared themselves guarantors of that document, which was signed by them, by Russian President Vladimir Putin and by the then Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko. Both the Germans and the French later admitted publicly that they had no intention of honouring any of their commitments.

The third instance was in December 2019, when Vladimir Zelensky was already the head of Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron actively promoted these agreements, gathering the Normandy Four at the Élysée Palace in December, where a document was likewise approved confirming that the Minsk agreements had to be implemented, including by incorporating into the Ukrainian Constitution a provision on the special status of the Donbass. Once again, we saw the same guarantors – France and Germany.

Over the past twelve years, they have had ample opportunity. They have proved by their deeds that their track record must inevitably be taken into account when they once again wish to act as “guarantors.”

Question: The US midterm congressional elections have galvanised Russophobes. We see that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are focusing on blaming Russia for all of America’s troubles. What is your forecast of how bilateral relations will change after the elections?

Sergey Lavrov: We are not in the forecasting business; we deal with realities. When the new Congress is formed and its members have to move from statements to concrete actions, we will see what this new body amounts to and what steps we must take in our relations with Washington, including with members of Congress, to safeguard our interests. I will not speculate.

Question: I wanted to ask if Russia’s position on resolving the conflict with Ukraine has changed since the last round of trilateral talks and is this a position that you discussed during the G20 meetings today in Atlanta, including with Secretary Rubio? And looking ahead, do you have any intention for dialogue in Abu Dhabi with Ukraine and with the US?

Sergey Lavrov: No, our position has not changed. It never changed from the outset of the special operation. The goals were announced. We cannot accept Ukraine being a threat, military threat to the legitimate security interests of the Russian Federation. And those were the plans of the West to make Ukraine such a permanent threat. We cannot accept outrageous discrimination of the Russian and Russian-speaking population there in Ukraine. Ukraine is the only country where a language is prohibited by several laws. And we cannot, of course, accept the situation when Ukraine is promoting Nazi ideology and practice. And these goals have not changed.

We appreciate the position of the Trump administration, which was the first and only so far Western country recognising the root causes of the beginning of this operation, of this Ukrainian crisis, and who recognised the need to handle this situation by addressing the root causes and taking into account fully the situation on the ground, the realities on the ground.

Therefore, of course, the Trump administration, we thought we agreed in Anchorage more than one year ago, in August 2025. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and the Trump administration was not able to make its own proposals, fully supported by Russia, acceptable to the Ukrainian regime. And this is really something we missed, unfortunately. The reason being the outrageous activity of Europeans who immediately started to persuade President Trump not to insist on his own initiative, accepted– I will underline this once again – by the Russian Federation.

As regards the meeting in Abu Dhabi, the meeting will take place. Our position is known. With what the Ukrainians are going to come to the table, I don’t know. Zelensky keeps bragging every day that he is getting more and more long-range missiles; ye would be attacking the Russian Federation, including Siberia, and so on and so forth. This mood is not really very much helpful for the preparation for negotiations.

Question: Ukrainian officials are saying they intend to organize a one-to-one meeting between President Zelensky and President Putin, while Moscow would rather have a phone call. Is President Putin ready to talk to President Zelensky now? Why would a phone call be acceptable to Moscow but not an in-person meeting between both of the leaders?

Sergey Lavrov: Where did you get this information from?

Question: From Ukrainian officials.

Sergey Lavrov: Don’t believe them. President Putin repeatedly said that in spite of entire history of the last six or so years after Zelensky became president, he is still ready to meet with him. He said this after Zelensky called for a direct meeting, and President Putin said if he is willing to meet, let him come to Moscow. We’ll guarantee his safety and security, which could not be guaranteed in Kiev, as far as I understand.

Question: So, there will be no meeting on the margins of the G20 summit?

Sergey Lavrov: Is he a member of G20?

Question: If he’s invited for conversations?

Sergey Lavrov: Look, once again, if he wants to meet, he must come to Moscow. This is normal practice in diplomacy and in real life. If you want a meeting, then the guy with whom you want to meet will tell you how this meeting can be organised.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs